09-30-2012, 07:10 AM
"Have you considered the possibility that, as MarkP suggested, Beeologics is actually working on a theory that would exonerate Monsanto and that's why they want to help them as much as they can? That makes much more sense than the idea of some Evil Corproration buying up companies to silence them.
By the way YurtGirl, Monsanto's income and assets are measured in the billions, not trillions. Try to contain the hysteria (yes, I know what it used to mean). Do you still really think Monsanto "uses radiation, splicing fish genes into watermelon seeds", as you stated earlier?"
If Monsanto wanted to SUPPORT the work, then they would have supported the work, very simply. They could have donated funds or given information freely. But they didn't. They BOUGHT out the company, which, if you look at their track record, is their first line of defense against ANYTHING that tries to question or slow them down. They offer to buy the opposition, and if that doesn't work, they sue them until they can't afford to buck them.
My statement about splicing fish genes into watermelon seeds was a theoretical example of a very real practice. GMOs often use genetics from other species, including fish, to try to make their plants and products stronger, more resilient. The fish splicing was to prevent certain foods from frost. It is very different from a hybrid scenario where you selectively breed. People have been selectively breeding since human history began. Genetic Modification has far more sinister reasons (MONEY, controlling food and seed supply) and far reaching ill effects (monocultures, health effects, ecosystem effects). And when focusing on the security of our planet's food supply, I would rather err on the side of 'hysteria' than apathy. Any day.
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
By the way YurtGirl, Monsanto's income and assets are measured in the billions, not trillions. Try to contain the hysteria (yes, I know what it used to mean). Do you still really think Monsanto "uses radiation, splicing fish genes into watermelon seeds", as you stated earlier?"
If Monsanto wanted to SUPPORT the work, then they would have supported the work, very simply. They could have donated funds or given information freely. But they didn't. They BOUGHT out the company, which, if you look at their track record, is their first line of defense against ANYTHING that tries to question or slow them down. They offer to buy the opposition, and if that doesn't work, they sue them until they can't afford to buck them.
My statement about splicing fish genes into watermelon seeds was a theoretical example of a very real practice. GMOs often use genetics from other species, including fish, to try to make their plants and products stronger, more resilient. The fish splicing was to prevent certain foods from frost. It is very different from a hybrid scenario where you selectively breed. People have been selectively breeding since human history began. Genetic Modification has far more sinister reasons (MONEY, controlling food and seed supply) and far reaching ill effects (monocultures, health effects, ecosystem effects). And when focusing on the security of our planet's food supply, I would rather err on the side of 'hysteria' than apathy. Any day.
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973